Speaker 1: In this episode, we look at the latest recruitment exam
Speaker 1: controversy in Sharkhand that has raised questions about the credibility
Speaker 1: of the state's selection process. We also take a look
Speaker 1: at Union Minister Bhagirat Chadri, who has returned a ninety
Speaker 1: nine lakh rupee subsidy received under a scheme administered by
Speaker 1: his own ministry, raising concerns about conflicts of interest. But
Speaker 1: first we talk about concerns over individual privacy that have
Speaker 1: emerged during the CJP protests. Hi, I'm Acha Sharma and
Speaker 1: you're listening to three things. The Indian Express new show.
Speaker 1: A pil has now been filed in the Delhi High
Speaker 1: Court challenging the use of a permanent surveillance star and
Speaker 1: high tech police vans equipped with facial recognition technology to
Speaker 1: monitor protesters at Juntarmant. The petition, fire by former Jawaharlal
Speaker 1: Naheru Students' Union president Ice Coach, argues that this amounted
Speaker 1: to continuous, indiscriminate and intrusive surveillance. So to understand the
Speaker 1: kind of surveillance protesters were subjected to during the recent
Speaker 1: protest in Delhi and what the law says about it,
Speaker 1: Michaelagueharaka Nanda speaks to the Undian expresses Vineed Pala, who
Speaker 1: writes on law for the newspaper.
Speaker 2: So we need tell us about the kind of AI
Speaker 2: and facial recognition technology that was installed at Junermantar and
Speaker 2: what was it able to do.
Speaker 3: So the allegation is that there is a mobile surveillance
Speaker 3: van there which is called Iktioner. This van is fitted
Speaker 3: with cameras that provide a three sixty degree field of
Speaker 3: view that runs live footage through an AI aided facial
Speaker 3: recognition software. Now, what this software does is that it
Speaker 3: maps the faces of the people in the crowd and
Speaker 3: then compares them against a police database of known offenders.
Speaker 3: And if the system finds a match, and the police
Speaker 3: has allegedly said that an eighty percent similarity is a
Speaker 3: positive match, it flags the individual. So this is the
Speaker 3: kind of surveillance that Coach is flagging in her petition
Speaker 3: and so.
Speaker 2: On what grounds has hosts challenged this and what does
Speaker 2: she find most concerning about it?
Speaker 3: The main concern is that this surveillance is completely arbitrary
Speaker 3: and it lacks any legal safeguards. Sosts petition argues that
Speaker 3: the police are collecting and storing personal data of the
Speaker 3: protesters without telling and even why it's being collected, without
Speaker 3: telling anyone who has access to it or how long
Speaker 3: it will be kept. So, as I said, the police
Speaker 3: are using this to intimidate students by telling, by threatening
Speaker 3: to expose their participation to their families and their colleges.
Speaker 3: Apart from this, the petition also highlights a very particular
Speaker 3: impact on female protesters. What it says is that during
Speaker 3: heavy rains, when there was no shelter, women were forced
Speaker 3: to stay in drenched clothes to continue the protest, and
Speaker 3: the police allegedly kept recording them. Cotious petition argues that
Speaker 3: this recording them in such a vulnerable physical state is
Speaker 3: a violation of their dignity and bodily privacy, and this
Speaker 3: is why they've asked the High courte to intervene.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: So what are the key legal and constitutional questions the
Speaker 2: quote will have to decide in this case.
Speaker 3: So a coach has raised the question of three intersecting
Speaker 3: fundamental rights, which is the right to equality, the right
Speaker 3: to free speech and peaceful assembly, and the right to
Speaker 3: privacy and dignity. Equality is guaranteed by Article fourteen. Free
Speaker 3: speech and peaceful assembly by Article nineteen to one, and
Speaker 3: privacy and dignity by Article twenty one. The biggest landmark
Speaker 3: here is the Supreme Courts, or rather the biggest legal
Speaker 3: standard here is the Supreme Courts twenty seventeen Putaswami judgment,
Speaker 3: which held privacy to be a fundamental right. That judgment
Speaker 3: established a triple test for state surveillance. That is, a
Speaker 3: state's intervention or infringement of the right to privacy, so
Speaker 3: that can be allowed only if it is a backed
Speaker 3: by a valid law, b serves a legtimate state interest,
Speaker 3: and c is a proportionate response to whatever that state
Speaker 3: interest is. Gosh has argued that this surveillance by the
Speaker 3: police it fails all three tests. And on the other end,
Speaker 3: the government has argued that this kind of videography is
Speaker 3: a standard law and order measure. Last week, during the
Speaker 3: hearing of this in High Court, the Solicitor General had
Speaker 3: actually told the court that claiming privacy in a public
Speaker 3: gathering is ironical because the protesters themselves are recording videos.
Speaker 3: So yeah, those are the questions that the court will
Speaker 3: have to decide, and.
Speaker 2: We need what kind of an impact can such surveillance have?
Speaker 2: On people's right to protest to what extent can discourage
Speaker 2: people from showing up for protests.
Speaker 3: That is the central argument in the petition. It says
Speaker 3: that this kind of surveillance has a chilling effect on
Speaker 3: people's right to protest, which is to say that people
Speaker 3: will choose not to go to the protest, even if
Speaker 3: they're legally allowed to do it, because they fear that
Speaker 3: the state will profile them and they will then face
Speaker 3: disciplinary action in college or they will deal with police
Speaker 3: scrutiny later in life. So this is what the petition argues.
Speaker 3: That such kind of a chilling effect makes citizens stay
Speaker 3: at home out of fear and undermines their freedom of
Speaker 3: speech and assembly.
Speaker 2: But does India currently have a clear legal framework governing
Speaker 2: the use of facial recognition technology.
Speaker 3: It doesn't. Actually, we have a massive regulatory vacuum in
Speaker 3: that space right now. We did pass the Digital Personal
Speaker 3: Data Protection Act a few years back, but the problem
Speaker 3: is that law grants very wide exemptions to government and
Speaker 3: law enforcement agencies. As a result, there are no clear
Speaker 3: guidelines on how the police can use facial recognition technology
Speaker 3: and how is that data to be then stored by
Speaker 3: the police. There are also no rules on where they
Speaker 3: retain this footage, who accesses it, and what are the
Speaker 3: consequences of any misuser leaks. And this is what the
Speaker 3: petition argues that without any independent oversight, the police have
Speaker 3: unfettered discretion, which makes the survey in gentlemen the arbitrary
Speaker 3: as well as opaque.
Speaker 2: Now, looking ahead, if the court rules either way, what
Speaker 2: president could it set for surveillance in other public spaces
Speaker 2: across in there.
Speaker 3: So, if the High Court upholds the surveillance, then it
Speaker 3: will give law enforcement agencies across the country a carte
Speaker 3: blanche to deploy this kind of facial recognition and technology
Speaker 3: and AI cameras at any public gathering or any protest
Speaker 3: without needing a specific legal order or warrant. And this
Speaker 3: would I think be a step in the direction of
Speaker 3: what we see in China, where you have normalized almost
Speaker 3: algorithmic policing. On the other hand, if the court rules
Speaker 3: in favor of the petition, then it could force the
Speaker 3: Indian government to finally establish strict procedural safeguards for this
Speaker 3: kind of surveillance, and I think that would be a
Speaker 3: good step for digital liberties and.
Speaker 2: We need if we talk on broader terms how should
Speaker 2: India balance public security with citizens privacy and the right
Speaker 2: to dissent.
Speaker 3: It's a tough balance, but other countries have already I think,
Speaker 3: done a good job of it right. So if we
Speaker 3: look at the European Union for example, it passed the
Speaker 3: Artificial Intelligence Act recently, under which the use of real
Speaker 3: time facial recognition technology by the police in public spaces
Speaker 3: is banned, with very strictly defined exceptions like searching for
Speaker 3: a missing child or preventing an imminent terrorist attack. And
Speaker 3: even then the police need prior authorization from an independent
Speaker 3: authority or from a judge. So we could look at
Speaker 3: a similar framework, and I think we need a legal
Speaker 3: framework which follows the guidelines established in the Putaswami judgment,
Speaker 3: which ensure that surveillances targeted, proportionate and subject to judicial oversight,
Speaker 3: rather than leaving it entirely to the discussion of the
Speaker 3: police underground.
Speaker 1: And next we take a look at jark Hunt, where
Speaker 1: another recruitment exam controversy has put the state's Public Service
Speaker 1: Commission under scrutiny. The latest row is around the fourteenth
Speaker 1: Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by the Jharkhan Public Service
Speaker 1: Commission or JPSC. After the preliminary results were declared, candidates
Speaker 1: raised questions over alleged discrepancies in the way the exam
Speaker 1: was conducted. After the matter came to light, the CID
Speaker 1: raided the residents of former Chief Secretary and JPSC chairperson
Speaker 1: El Kan, who has now resigned, and arrested several people,
Speaker 1: including JPSC officials and employees linked to the private agency
Speaker 1: that helped conduct the exam. But this is not just
Speaker 1: about one exam. Since Jharkan was formed in two thousand,
Speaker 1: almost every major GPSC recruitment has faced allegations. So what
Speaker 1: exactly triggered the latest controversy and why has Jharkan's recruitment
Speaker 1: system faced such repeated issues. To understand this, we're joined
Speaker 1: by the inn expresses shub Humptiga Shubum. We know this
Speaker 1: is in the first JPSC controversy. In fact, you highlight
Speaker 1: how this has become almost a recurring pattern over the
Speaker 1: last two decades. Talk about why does almost every major
Speaker 1: recruitment examined har Khan seem to end in allegations of irregularities.
Speaker 5: See, that's actually the bigger story we need to understand.
Speaker 5: So whenever we see any either regularity, scam or controversy
Speaker 5: in Jharkhan. So the bigger question is where did it
Speaker 5: actually start? So I always try to find out the
Speaker 5: origin of the controversy or any scam. So Jarkan was
Speaker 5: formed in two thousand and if we go back and
Speaker 5: try to find the starting point of these controversies, so.
Speaker 4: You will realize that there is no clear origin point
Speaker 4: of any controversy.
Speaker 5: If you'll trace the history of fourteenth GPSC controversy that
Speaker 5: recently it's going on, so you will eventually reach the
Speaker 5: first and second GPSC examinations where the CBI investigation is
Speaker 5: still going on and trial is still continuing. Even that
Speaker 5: isn't really the beginning. Before Jharkan was created, this region
Speaker 5: was part of Behart and there were controversies there as well,
Speaker 5: So honestly, it's difficult to say where it all begins.
Speaker 5: This isn't just about the recent issue. So almost every
Speaker 5: major GPSC examination in Sharkan's history you will see from
Speaker 5: first to now, I think all of the GPS exams,
Speaker 5: recruitment exams have faced some kind of controversy, whether it's
Speaker 5: about revised result uns, a key disputes, interview, or anything
Speaker 5: reservation issue, anything, quote cases and all. So something or
Speaker 5: the other kept coming up. So for many experience, this
Speaker 5: latest controversy doesn't feel like an exception, but it's a
Speaker 5: huge one now and it feels like a continuation of
Speaker 5: a pattern that's been there for more than two decades now.
Speaker 1: And so what has triggered this recent controversy?
Speaker 5: So I think it all started after the preliminary test
Speaker 5: result of fourteenth the JPSC exam, which is officially called
Speaker 5: the Combined Civil Service Examination here.
Speaker 4: So the first.
Speaker 5: Issue was that the Commission did not release the category
Speaker 5: wise cutoff MARS. So now that's important because we need
Speaker 5: to understand that it's important for any experience because once
Speaker 5: a candidate who knows the cutoff, they can roughly estimate
Speaker 5: whether he or she'll qualify for the main's exam or not,
Speaker 5: and if they think they have a chance, they will
Speaker 5: immediately start preparing for the mains joint coaching or begin
Speaker 5: answer writing practices. So, since the cutoff was not released,
Speaker 5: candidates started question.
Speaker 4: In the overall process.
Speaker 5: And then the second issue was the merit list. So
Speaker 5: some candidates I think pointed out that it didn't carry
Speaker 5: the signature of the Commission's GPS constitutional members and recently,
Speaker 5: in response, the GPS chairperson, while he was responding to
Speaker 5: this question to media, he talked about something Commissions two
Speaker 5: thousand and two rules or guidelines, so he cited those
Speaker 5: guidelines and said that those signatures of members actually were
Speaker 5: not mandatory. And then the controversy really intensified when the
Speaker 5: reportedly one OMR sheet of a candidate from another state
Speaker 5: started circulating on social media.
Speaker 4: So in that candidates OMR sheet, the candidate.
Speaker 5: Had actually qualified despite attempting very fewer questions required to
Speaker 5: qualify the exam. So that sparked widespread discussions and debate,
Speaker 5: and now the protests among his parents. So eventually, as
Speaker 5: the protests or the discussions grew and pressure mounted, the
Speaker 5: state government directed the CID to investigate the matter.
Speaker 1: So Shuaman, at the stage what has actually been verified
Speaker 1: by investigators and what still remains only an allegation.
Speaker 5: We cannot make that distinction between the verified and the allegation.
Speaker 5: But what we know for sure is that the CID
Speaker 5: has registered a case, formed an sit and carried out
Speaker 5: rates at the GPSC former office and the GPS chairperson's
Speaker 5: residence as well, and arrested some several people. So these
Speaker 5: include GPS staff, the examination controller, and people linked to
Speaker 5: the private agency that was given the responsibility to conduct
Speaker 5: the exam. So those are the verified development we know
Speaker 5: and the artists have happened that we know, and this
Speaker 5: investigation is officially underway, and the agency's involvement in the
Speaker 5: examination is also almost established.
Speaker 4: But beyond that, the investigation is still going on.
Speaker 5: One of the major allegations is that the GPS chairperson
Speaker 5: knew about the concerns regarding the private agency and still
Speaker 5: allowed it to continue. That has not been verified yet.
Speaker 5: But the CIDs is still questioning those who have been
Speaker 5: arrested and it is also interogating the formal GPS chairperson.
Speaker 5: So the CID has not reached any final conclusion yet.
Speaker 5: That's why it's important not to treat every allegation as
Speaker 5: an established fact. We'll have to wait and see what
Speaker 5: the investigation finally reveals.
Speaker 1: And you spoke of the concerns about the private agency
Speaker 1: conducting the examination, and we understand that it had reportedly
Speaker 1: been blacklisted earlier, So how did it end up conducting
Speaker 1: one of Jharkhan's biggest recruitment exams?
Speaker 5: So this agency was actually blacklisted by the Jharkan government
Speaker 5: itself last year May by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission
Speaker 5: or jsc SO. JSSE had black lily did this company
Speaker 5: for non compliance with its agreement and the same company
Speaker 5: was blacklisted in Uttar Padesh and other estates. But despite
Speaker 5: all that, it was later given the responsibility of conducting
Speaker 5: one of Jharkan's important exam. Now, if we go by
Speaker 5: what the former GPSC chairperson told the media, he said
Speaker 5: he had no idea that the company had been blacklisted.
Speaker 5: And that's a very i mean vague answer and naturally
Speaker 5: it has raised even more questions. So candidates and opposition
Speaker 5: parties are asking how a company with that background was
Speaker 5: entrusted with such an important examination. And the CID is
Speaker 5: also looking into the role of the agency along with
Speaker 5: the role of GPSC officials. And there's one more important
Speaker 5: point here. In January this year, a person from Karanataka,
Speaker 5: he wrote a formal complain letter to GPS chairperson this
Speaker 5: year complaining about the irregularities involving this agency, this private agency.
Speaker 5: And when the letter surfaced everywhere on social media recently
Speaker 5: after the investigation started by the CID. So when the
Speaker 5: chairperson was asked about it by the media, he said
Speaker 5: that he generally response to complaints and the GPS often
Speaker 5: address the issues or the concerns coming from anyone. But
Speaker 5: he was saying that it's possible that this particular complaint
Speaker 5: was not properly looked into or may have been overlooked.
Speaker 1: That was his response, right, And investigators now say one
Speaker 1: into which will Abhetivari is at the center of the investigation,
Speaker 1: talk about why has his alleged rule become so significant.
Speaker 5: So Abbatari or Manostivari is at the center of the
Speaker 5: investigation because according to the CID, he is one of
Speaker 5: the key links in the entire case. Now we have
Speaker 5: no idea how CID directly went to Abbativari, or it
Speaker 5: might be possible that CID may have asked the chairperson
Speaker 5: and chairperson might have given the name of Abbetiari because
Speaker 5: there was a complaint letter submitted by someone from Karnataka recently,
Speaker 5: so that might be the reason how Abbatiari entered into
Speaker 5: the scene. So, according to the investigators, this person Abativari,
Speaker 5: he cleared the jsc cgial examination and became a block
Speaker 5: supply officer in GODA district and at the same time,
Speaker 5: they say that he was also working as the marketing
Speaker 5: manager of this private testing agency that like now based agency.
Speaker 5: So in the complaint letter that we discussed earlier, his
Speaker 5: name was specifically mentioned along with two other names, and
Speaker 5: that is one of the reasons why the investigation is
Speaker 5: now focusing so much on him. So the CID is
Speaker 5: also trying to find out his own recruitment history because
Speaker 5: it is said that he had also cleared four other
Speaker 5: exams government exams conducted by JPSC and JSC and his
Speaker 5: close family members also were in good position in government job.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So there are also allegations that he acted as a
Speaker 5: middleman by demanding money from candidates.
Speaker 4: So those allegations are still under investigation.
Speaker 5: But that's why this person of Ativari has become such
Speaker 5: an important person in this entire investigation.
Speaker 1: A shubam as someone who has been reporting on these
Speaker 1: discrepancies and how recurring they are. Talk about how exactly
Speaker 1: does someone manipulate a public recruitment examination, Like at what
Speaker 1: stages would you say such a system is actually vulnerable.
Speaker 5: See, the investigation is still in its initial phase, so
Speaker 5: it's very difficult for me to say exactly what happened
Speaker 5: in this particular case, but generally, if there's manipulation in
Speaker 5: a recruitment or something like this examination process, I think
Speaker 5: it can happen at different stages. If there isn't enough transparency,
Speaker 5: it's hard to pinpoint where things may have gone wrong.
Speaker 5: It could happen during the conduct of the examination, or
Speaker 5: while handling the OMR sheets, or during the evaluation process,
Speaker 5: or even while preparing and publishing the final results. One
Speaker 5: question that I personally have is who prepares the question
Speaker 5: papers in exam in Jharkan In many other states, as
Speaker 5: far as I know, for civil services examinations, that responsibility
Speaker 5: usually goes to professors from different universities from different fields.
Speaker 5: But if you look at question papers from several recruitment
Speaker 5: exams in Jharkhand over the years, you will find a
Speaker 5: lot of very basic and sealy mistakes. So that raises
Speaker 5: another serious question that who is actually preparing these papers
Speaker 5: and what kind of system is in place to ensure
Speaker 5: quality and accountability. So as far as this particular case
Speaker 5: is concerned, the investigators are looking into the role of
Speaker 5: the private agency as well as GPS officials to understand
Speaker 5: whether there were any lapses or not.
Speaker 1: But are these controversies unique to Sharkhun or do we
Speaker 1: see these across recruitment systems.
Speaker 4: No, I don't think so that this is very unique
Speaker 4: for Jharkhan.
Speaker 5: We have seen controversies over recruitment examinations in different parts
Speaker 5: of the country as well, even from Chattisgird, from Bihar
Speaker 5: and everywhere. Even Vapam scandal in I think Madhya prad
Speaker 5: Wapam scam in Chattisgird. But what's different in Sharkan is
Speaker 5: the consistency of this controversy series of controversies. So it
Speaker 5: almost feels like every major recruitment exam ends up facing
Speaker 5: some issue. So you will see allegations in JPS, you
Speaker 5: will see allegation INJSC against JSC. You will see controversies
Speaker 5: in teachers recruitment exam, sometime field worker exam. So take
Speaker 5: the recent example LIKEJSC fieldworker recruitment exam. So the vacancy
Speaker 5: came out in twenty twenty four, but the examination was
Speaker 5: conducted almost two years later, recently on July nineteen. So
Speaker 5: after the exam, when the Indian Express spoke to the
Speaker 5: gs C secretary, he said that around seventy five percent.
Speaker 5: Minded seventy five percent of the candidates didn't appear. One
Speaker 5: of the major reasons that many candidates couldn't give exam
Speaker 5: because they were allotted examination centers five hundred to six
Speaker 5: hundred to seven hundred kilometers away from where they live.
Speaker 5: So this was the major reason that around seventy five
Speaker 5: percent of students didn't appear for the exam. And then
Speaker 5: there was another controversy in the same exam. Tantal students
Speaker 5: complain that around forty percent of the questions in the
Speaker 5: Santali language in the second paper of that exam were
Speaker 5: not based on the class tense labors. They were claiming
Speaker 5: that the questions were more at the level of UPSC
Speaker 5: or a UGC NET. So these controversies are not unique
Speaker 5: to Tarken, but in Sharkan it seems to happen so
Speaker 5: frequently that unfortunately, many people have almost started accepting it
Speaker 5: as a normal. So it has become so normal in
Speaker 5: Sharkun that the controversy doesn't seem to be very unique.
Speaker 1: And Shubam, like you just highlighted, whenever an examination is questioned,
Speaker 1: the impact on candidates is grave. So for lacks of
Speaker 1: aspirits who have spent years preparing, what does that uncertainty
Speaker 1: actually mean?
Speaker 5: So for candidates, this is much bigger than just the
Speaker 5: one examination. Take the recent Jassy field worker examination itself.
Speaker 5: So around three to three point five leg candidate apply
Speaker 5: for a job that is essentially a field level health
Speaker 5: worker position. And that tells you how intense the competition
Speaker 5: is and how desperately a young people are waiting for
Speaker 5: the government jobs in Jarkun. So many of them spend
Speaker 5: years preparing. They put their careers, private job opportunities, and
Speaker 5: other plans on hold because they believe clearing one government
Speaker 5: examination can completely change their lives. So every time there's
Speaker 5: a controversy, recruitment gets delayed, courte cases began, investigation happens,
Speaker 5: and the frustration keeps increasing. And the iron is that
Speaker 5: Jarkun is one of the richest states in terms of
Speaker 5: natural disources mineral resources. It has cold iron, ore, steel
Speaker 5: and so much mineral wealth. But despite that, a huge
Speaker 5: number of young people still depend on government jobs because
Speaker 5: power d and unemployment remain the major issue in Sharkun.
Speaker 5: And now that frustation is becoming visible on the streets
Speaker 5: as well. We have seen student groups coming together and
Speaker 5: holding protest over GPS ANDSSE recruitments. In fact, today was
Speaker 5: the biggest protest in recent times. So the protesters today
Speaker 5: they said that they will continue their editation until the
Speaker 5: state government takes responsibility and addresses their concerns because ultimately
Speaker 5: both GPS and JSSE function under the state government under
Speaker 5: the CM.
Speaker 4: So this is no longer just about one exam.
Speaker 5: It's about people's trust in the entire recruitment system in
Speaker 5: different states. And I think this huge protest today that
Speaker 5: held in Rachi, I think that was also somewhere influenced
Speaker 5: by the enthusiasm of the students protesting in Delhi.
Speaker 4: So I think that comes from there.
Speaker 5: And now people here are also protesting and questioning the
Speaker 5: state government.
Speaker 1: And in the end we talk about Union Minister of
Speaker 1: State for Agriculture, Hagirat Chadri, who has returned a ninety
Speaker 1: nine lakh rupee subsidy that he received for a cucumber
Speaker 1: farm under a scheme administered by his own ministry. The
Speaker 1: subsidy was granted under a scheme promoting large scale commercial
Speaker 1: cultivation of selected vegetables and flowers. It covers up to
Speaker 1: fifty percent of a project's cost subject to a ceiling
Speaker 1: of one korre per family, as reported by the Indian
Speaker 1: expresses Harrikish and Sharma, The Center disclosed the repayment in
Speaker 1: a written response to Parliament, exactly one month after an
Speaker 1: Indian Express investigation revealed that Chadrii had received the subsidy
Speaker 1: through a National Horticulture Board scheme. Responding to a question
Speaker 1: from Tuinomul Congress MP Abishaik Banerji, Minister of State for
Speaker 1: Agriculture ramnah Tucker said Chawdrei had informed the government that
Speaker 1: he had refunded the money to the concerned bank. The
Speaker 1: bank has now been directed to return the amount to
Speaker 1: the National Horticulture Board. Chaudri's cucumber project covers more than
Speaker 1: sixteen thousand square meters and was among four hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty seven projects apar roofed by the Board in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five. Records viewed by the Unen Express showed that
Speaker 1: a capital subsidy of ninety nine point three LAC was
Speaker 1: credited to his HDFC Bank loan account in March this year.
Speaker 1: What makes this case particularly significant is the institutional relationship involved.
Speaker 1: The National Horticulture Board is an autonomous organization operating under
Speaker 1: the administrative control of the Agriculture Ministry, where Chadre serves
Speaker 1: as a minister. The government also told Parliament that BJPMP
Speaker 1: Lumbaram CHADRII had received financial assistance under the board's schemes
Speaker 1: during the past five years. Separately, The Indian Express had
Speaker 1: reported that three family members of senior ISS officer Nareshpal
Speaker 1: Gangwar collectively received more than one point one six crow
Speaker 1: rupees in horticulture subsidies. Banaji had specifically asked whether the
Speaker 1: scheme contained a conflict of interest or requisal policy for
Speaker 1: public functionaries and their relatives. The government's response was that
Speaker 1: the existing guidelines contain no such provision. So while Chaudhry
Speaker 1: has returned the subsidy, the larger issue still remains unresolved
Speaker 1: that the scheme currently has no formal safeguard requiring ministers,
Speaker 1: MPs or senior officials to disclose conflicts or step aside
Speaker 1: when their own applications are considered. You were listening to
Speaker 1: Three Things by The Indian Express. Today's show was edited
Speaker 1: and mixed BISS for ash Bavar and produced by Anaharakananda
Speaker 1: and me Ichasharma. If you like the show, do subscribe
Speaker 1: to us wherever you get your podcasts. You can also
Speaker 1: recommend it to someone you think may like it, with
Speaker 1: a friend or in your family. This is the best
Speaker 1: way for people to get to know about us. You
Speaker 1: can also tweet us at Express Podcasts or write to
Speaker 1: us at podcasts at Indian Express dot com